On the rewarding side is the consumer that has been underserved by different brokers and one way or the other involves you for công ty thiết kế xây dựng help. The Court acknowledged that while it would appear that the letter was written by petitioner out of his social duty to a member of the association which he heads, and was written to respondent as a reply to the latter’s demand letter sent to a member, however, a studying of the topic letter-reply addressed to respondent does not present any rationalization concerning the status of Mrs. Quingco and why she is entitled to the premises as towards the claim of respondent’s client. In using phrases equivalent to «lousy», «inutile», «carabao English», «stupidity», and «satan», the letter, because it was written, casts aspersion on the character, integrity and status of respondent as a lawyer which exposed him to ridicule. The words as written had only the effect of maligning respondent’s integrity as a lawyer, a lawyer who had served as legal officer in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for thus many years till his retirement and afterwards as consultant of the same agency and in addition a notary public. Needless so that you can cite specific provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as the same is irrelevant to the current case. This công ty xây dựng!
Applying by analogy the provisions of Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 and Administrative Circular 13-2001 which modified Administrative Circular No. 12-2000, which laid down a rule of desire in the applying of the penalties supplied for in B.P. Any of the imputations coated by Article 353 is defamatory; and, under the general rule laid down in Article 354, «every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it’s true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it’s shown». The Court held that because the letter shouldn’t be a privileged communication, «malice is presumed» beneath Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code gives «every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it’s true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it’s shown», besides in the following circumstances: «(1) a private communication made by any individual to a different in the efficiency of any legal, ethical, or social duty; and (2) a fair and true report, made in good faith, without any feedback or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any assertion, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of every other act carried out by public officers within the exercise of their functions». version!
The Court stated that in an effort to prove that an announcement falls within the purview of a certified privileged communication under Article 354, No. 1, as claimed by petitioner, the following requisites should concur: (1) the person who made the communication had a authorized, moral, or social duty to make the communication, or at the least, had an interest to protect, which curiosity may both be his personal or of the one to whom it’s made; (2) the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior, having some curiosity or duty in the matter, and who has the ability to furnish the safety sought; and (3) the statements in the communication are made in good religion and without malice. May we remind you that any attempt in your half to proceed harassing the particular person of Mrs. Teresita Quingco of No. 1582 Mngo St., Bgy. The letter was crafted in an injurious manner than what is necessary in answering a demand letter which uncovered respondent to public ridicule thus negating good faith and exhibiting malicious intent on petitioner’s part. This article was created by công ty xây dựng!
He by no means knew respondent prior to the demand letter sent by the latter to Mrs. Quingco who then sought his help thereto. The Court was not persuaded by the argument of the petitioner that his letter was a private communication made in the efficiency of his «moral and social obligation as the lawyer-in-fact of the administrator of the Rodriguez estate» the place Mrs. Quingco is a recognized tenant and to whom respondent had written the demand letter to vacate, thus in the nature of a privileged communication and not libelous. Gauging from the above-mentioned exams, the words used in the letter dated August 18, 1995 sent by petitioner to respondent is defamatory. The sufferer of the libelous letter was identifiable as the subject letter-reply was addressed to respondent himself. Petitioner’s topic letter-reply itself states that the identical was copy furnished to all concerned. On that same day, Atty. Not personally understanding who the sender was, Atty.